A Communism for the 21st Century

I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.

On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.

We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia?

We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.

I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.

The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.

What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.

All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that “all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other,” that we were “all immigrants” at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any specific piece of land as “theirs.”

Since “we” are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist “counter-culture”of the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it’s true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.

Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: “A lot of these arrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship for having several wives.

Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own country through mass immigration are the bad guys.

The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.

A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”

I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.

The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region “is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought.” First of all, I don’t think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a “laboratory.” Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.

Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.

In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that.

The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter:

“When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”

What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.

We all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.

Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam’s hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you believe in evolution, isn’t it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn’t it?

British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.

According to the writer Melanie Phillips, “He is driven by a universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong essentially to a primitive past. (...) Hence his closely-related obsession with ‘universal’ human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing and that Britain’s unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and sustain it.”

Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population growth of several billion people to 2050.

It doesn’t take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable.

Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?

According to Marxist logic, yes.

Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.

This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.

One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. While the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.

Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.

According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”

Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.

In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and “discrimination” is a mortal sin, the “racist” is the worst of creatures. Those who control the definition of “racist,” the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.

Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass immigration as “racism,” they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it.

Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:

“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. [...] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands [...] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”

The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.”

Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.

Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.

The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides’ writings about The History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC:

“Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being ‘absolved of blame’, men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social organisation.”

Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.

Mission Impossible: "The Oriental girl does not need to be aggressive. They are, on average, more than sufficiently smart or wily to manipulate a successful path to their relationship goals."

Aggression is aggression, irrespective of how it manifests itself, and you'll have to trust me on this one. Scientific studies prove that while women are less prone to physical violence, they are no less aggressive than men. In terms of White fetishism, which is a political topic given its centrality, in my opinion, to the debate on demographics and immigration. Moreover, my argument was that East Asian females are no less aggressive than their black and brown-skinned male counterparts.

Mission Impossible: "I am sure you will agree; white males have been fantasizing about Asia's or the Orient's women ever since we first waded ashore in the region to feast our eyes on their elegant and black-eyed magic, circa 375 years ago. The site of a Chinese girl in Ching Dynasty attire, or a young Indian beauty in a clinging Sari, is still enough to gird the loins of any jaded European man."

I completely disagree. White males historically have placed importance on female cleavage and on the "hour-glass figure." According to anthropologists, Caucasoid females (obviously incl. some though not all Indians) tend to be the only racial group that possesses these attributes i.e. Mongoloid females do not have the proper waist-to-hip ratio or sizeable breasts, and Negroid females tend to be the wrong shape (according to European standards of course).

In newspaper interviews with East Asian female/White male couples, the female tends to have dated only White males, while the White males are "liberal," having dated women from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Nor do White men fetishize Asian physical traits in the same way that blondism, pale skin and light or colored eyes are fetishized by East Asian females.

As far as your "Ching Dynasty attire" and "Sari" statements are concerned, these appear to be your personal preferences which have little to do with the macro-dynamics of interracial relationships. I would have to agree with Bob Doney's suggestion...

'Professor' Kapitein, I see your laboratory research has reached some profound scientific conclusions about Oriental and Asian females. I bow to your superior knowledge. Real experience, shared or echoed by many others, is no match for it.

As for 'aggressive' Oriental girls, I will leave it to others to note that emotion's overweening presence in your 2007-05-28 04:57 comment. One wonders therefore, whether a suit of delicate Ching Dynasty attire might not become you?

from Saharian "Marcfrans -- I'm not interested in a debate with you. Nothing personal, but you argue too much, to the extent that one wonders what your real purpose is here.But no matter. You are behind the times. You are stuck in an old paradigm."

You should try living with 17 million of these people. I'm leaving for Luxembourg. Too much bureaucracy and talk talk talk here. Vote with your feet for lower taxes and fewer laws. The legal weed does not make up for things like getting parking tickets because the government sends your renewal out 6 months late routinely yet keeps letting in millions of third world immigrants to trash your parked car (of course they do nothing about vandalism).

Referring to-
"No other culture has had millions of jobs stripped from its economy and sent (the jargon is 'outsourced') to non-western states, especially India. To describe India as a democracy is to insult every democrat from Socrates to Churchill."

I agree with the 2nd line but not the 1st!!..! Yes, majority dont rule India and so, it is not a democracy, being ruled by communists in evil nexus with a motley gang of Abrahamic religion types, atheists, power mongers and usurpers.

Regarding the 1st part, more manufacturing jobs - estimated at 3 million - have gone to China, many more to Mexico and Canada, while only low wage Call Center jobs have gone to India which has stiff competition from Philippines, Egypt, Romania, Malaysia, Pakistan...etc etc.

3rd, yes India may fail as a state unless its muslim population is settled in Pakistan [as originally intended by lowest caste dalit Dr Ambedkar] now as part of KASHMIR SOLUTION. They all should have left for their islamic homeland of Pakistan, back in 1947 the year of partition.

1) The immediate subject at hand was whether the comments of Saharian were "beyond the pale" (his own words). For me, his (implied) advocacy of violence against non-whites was indeed beyond the pale. You, of course didn't have the guts to take a clear stand, but engaged in lengthy wailing about "western culture being taken to the cleaners by impersonal totalitarian forces". There is nothing impersonal about George Soros, Mark Malloch-Brown, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, etc....

2) Your latest pseudo-psychological analysis of my person shows that you are in essence no different than those alleged "impersonal totalitarian forces" when it comes to responding to arguments with personal attacks. Your latest rant certainly did not present an argument to my main question, which was how this 'violence' was going to help preserve democracy in the west. I will have to wait a bit longer for a serious answer from you, because you do not like your assertions to be confronted with arguments and difficult questions.

3) Indeed, it is rather funny - ironic really - that you introduced here a lengthy (and in this context totally irrelevant) paragraph on the Wolfowitz case (World Bank), and then proceeded with tactics similar to those used by some of Wolfowitz's worst detractors. But, no, I am no Wolfowitz, and I will definitely not take your "hint" and be shut up by the likes of you.

4) Finally, it's not my fault that your economic knowledge is wanting, but I certainly do NOT have "an economic answer and solution for every problem". For a Brit, you seem very poor in making empirical observations. Describing me as an "East Coast Yank"? Mon Dieu! You do not seem to know what "Yanks" are. Perhaps you know only a caricature from Fleet Street? As to the British empire, I doubt that I have ever made "derogatory" remarks about that. I do recall several positive remarks, though, particularly gratitudenous remarks about the British legacy of democracy in India. But then, you already have made it abundantly clear that Indians do not deserve equal "respect" in your eyes. Think again, my last reference to the "empire" was not a judgement about the British empire, but rather about you.

In response to your lengthy "Parts 1" and "Part 2", I covered 4 different subjects in 4 distinct paragraphs. What has been your response to my points? Let's see:

-- " I psyched (sic) you out months ago. It's on record."

-- " I will send you an application form for employment ......at the BBC."

Indeed, against that kind of (non)'arguments' I have absolutely no defense. And you surely are a 'worthy' discussion partner for 'Saharian'. Actually, you two are not really that different from the....BBC, in your single-minded ideological pursuits, all be it for a different ideology of course! And just as close-minded as the BBC too, to any sort of argumentation.

The empire is long gone. Get over it. And fight for some worthy goal (like genuine democracy and British selfdetermination) instead of racist illusions.

Anyone with time to waste can look back in the archives and see that the ubiquitous postings of 'marcfrans' are chock full of strawmen, manufactured differences of opinion, pseudo-intellectual debate, and littered with personalized accusations for good measure.

You are so full of yourself, you think nothing of pronouncing, emphatically, on other people's belief systems, attitudes, and mental state. You do this on the scantiest of evidence.

Your political position shifts constantly because you need the freedom to attack anyone who offends your fragile intellectual ego. Anyone who challenges your aggressive claim to dominance on this forum has to be opposed. Therefore, we really don't quite know if you are conservative (small 'c'), liberal, a champagne socialist, or just plain nuts.

Your evident need to stretch out debate, with ever shifting agenda (10-set tennis matches) can be explained by your unhealthy desire to win every argument at all costs. You just go on and on, with no particular purpose that I can identify other than the protection of your own ego. Giving praise to others is anathema to you, unless of course they have first stroked your ego! Have you ever considered psychological counselling?

You have an economic argument or solution for every problem. Economics is your bag, or so you smugly believe. You persist with such nonsense despite the fact most people have already concluded economics is pseudo-science.

Your latest posting is yet another occasion (there have been at least 2 others) where you have attempted to make a derogatory reference to the British Empire. I don't know, but you seem to be an East Coast Yank. Yanks don't like Brits. You and your kind have been bitching and back-biting about the British Empire and the British since the latter part of the 18th century. You also worked very hard for the Empire's demise and supported every violent uprising that ever occured. Indeed the Empire is long gone, but that needn't stop people remembering with affection, the relatively civilized state of the world when it was still viable. And remember this, America would be nowhere today had it not been for the prior existence of the British Empire. Much of it Britain handed to Washington for free under the guise of fighting Communism.

So what should be my worthy goal? My worthy goal is trying to undo some of the damage done to this world by just 50 years of crass, overly compassionate, and feminized American stewardship. You American chaps strut this world as if you are Kodiak Bears, when in fact most of you are little more than Teddy Bears. As I have had published elsewhere, the biggest strategic error the West ever made was to pass leadership of Western Civilization to the United States of America. Philistines cannot be effective custodians of the high Greco-Roman traditions that underpin what we used to stand for.

I dare say this Forum has already lost many readers thanks to your 'style', if we can call it that. Perhaps you can do us all a favour and take the hint?

This will be last time I waste another minute dealing with your pathetic (and often childish) rantings on this Brussels Journal forum.

Marsouin said: " If the successful are compassionate, empathetic even, the delight in their success conflicts with the thought of the shame of inferiority and resentment toward them by the less successful."

I don't think the leftists are compassionate. On the contrary, I think they enjoy ruining other people's lives. Unfortunately, real conservatives have been replaced by pseudo-conservatives who are soft on the extreme left, and reserve their harsh words for real conservatives.

" That’s why socialist policies continue despite decades of evidence that it does the exact contrary and does enormous harm to those it claims ostensibly to help. It’s not rational – pure emotion. "

Intelligent and compassionate people would see the wrong they are doing. I consider the extreme left as stupid fanatics who enjoy destroying things. Compassionate, intelligent people have been squeezed out of the public life by the left, and the last remaining conservatives are afraid to voice dissent.

" The socialist solution: all cultures must become equally valid and just. "

What is killing us is immigration. Declaring that all cultures are equal does not bother me.

Anyway, as Fjordman says, there is no consistency in the arguments of the pro-immigration crowd. On the one hand, "we’re supposed to celebrate our differences". On the other hand, "it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all.". Their random arguments change from day to day and self-contradiction does not bother them.

1) Yes, 'Saharian' can speak for himself, but he certainly has not addressed my point that his 'violence' is not going to preserve 'democracy'. As he says himself, "no one here is talking about that". Indeed, he doesn't appear to believe in it himself. So what kind of society is his 'violence' going to bring about? I fail to see why a lily-white nondemocracy would be preferable to the usual nonwhite one. India and the USA demonstrate that 'democracy' is not based on ethnic purity, nor on any other kind of 'purity', but rather on an 'ethos' and attitudes propagated from one generation to the next.

2) You make contradictory statements. On the one hand you claim that we don't live in a democracy and that comments like this on this forum would not be possible under "authentic democratic conditions"? How come you can make these comments on this website? Perhaps because the server is based in a real "democracy" (and not in Brussels)? If anything, this specific reference to "authentic democratic conditions" in this context suggests directly that you are not a democrat, whereas, all your 'racial purity' concerns and comments only do so indirectly.

3) I broadly agree with your comments about Wolfowitz, Soros, Malloch-Brown, etc... But, note that Wolfowitz is being ousted by 'white' naive-leftie European governments. His strongest supporters, besides the Bush administration, are nonwhite Japan and some African governments. Thus, it does not make sense to blame nonwhites for this. Moreover, the proximate 'cause' for this hullabaloo is that Wolfie has shown himself to be not much different from the typical bureaucrat (in showering favors) and that he has walked nicely into a trap set by the leftist multicul crowd. Reading your comment about "outsourcing", it would appear that they have infected you as well. The WSJ is right in attacking the hypocrisy of Wolfowitz's attackers, and also in attacking the bureacratic 'gravy train' of most multilateral bureaucracies, but not in defending Wolfowitz himself.

4) What's wrong with "even Indians" getting "more respect" in some quarters? Don't they deserve respect? I doubt very much your contention about the true attitudes of different peoples vis-a-vis other peoples. But one can hardly blame nonwhites in general for disrespecting supposedly 'white' cultures that are led by leftist 'elites' that suffer from perverse selfhatred. My point is that your focus should be on changing the current naive-left orthodoxy in white cultures, rather than blaming non-white peoples for the absurdities in current 'white' cultures. That would be more honest.

Better if I leave you to debate with the falsity of your interpretations. I psyched you out months ago; it's on record.

We may assume Saharian hasn't addressed your 'point' because he detects something very peculiar in your unquenchable desire to engage in "10 Set verbal tennis matches." As you speak so highly of the democracy we allegedly live in, then can we assume you will also agree he is perfectly free to ignore you?

Your second para:

2) You make contradictory statements. On the one hand you claim that we don't live in a democracy and that comments like this on this forum would not be possible under "authentic democratic conditions"? How come you can make these comments on this website? Perhaps because the server is based in a real "democracy" (and not in Brussels)? If anything, this specific reference to "authentic democratic conditions" in this context suggests directly that you are not a democrat, whereas, all your 'racial purity' concerns and comments only do so indirectly.

... apart from being a load of irrelevant rubbish, it also helps to illustrate your true motives for coming to this forum. With an intellect as conceited, petty, and as boring as yours, I am astonished you ain't already rich and famous.

Give me your mailing address and I will send you an application form for employment with an organization that would suit you down to the ground ...
.
..
...
.... the BBC.

I see White male/Oriental female relationships celebrated widely in the media and am convinced that far from flings, this form of interracial relations is most likely to result in marriage and offspring. Make no mistake, however, the Oriental "girl" is the driving force behind it: they are no less aggressive than Arabs or Blacks. While White fetishism is not a result of multiculturalism, it is certainly exacerbated by it.

What you claim to see being "celebrated widely in the media" vis-a-vis Oriental girls and White males is a relatively recent phenomena. My earlier comment (about the dominance of Black male & white female relationships in media and entertainment) actually had the 1975 to circa 2002 period more in mind. That is when most of the 'damage' was done.

The Oriental girl does not need to be aggressive. They are, on average, more than sufficiently smart or wily to manipulate a successful path to their relationship goals.

I am sure you will agree; white males have been fantasizing about Asia's or the Orient's women ever since we first waded ashore in the region to feast our eyes on their elegant and black-eyed magic, circa 375 years ago. The site of a Chinese girl in Ching Dynasty attire, or a young Indian beauty in a clinging Sari, is still enough to gird the loins of any jaded European man.

Before the young dregs of American society began being dumped upon unsuspecting Asian cultures by its naval fleets (and in huge numbers) the best brothels in the world were to be found in Singapore, Hong Kong, Calcutta, Bombay, and Shanghai. Lord knows how many happy marriages (and offspring) have come from the meeting of Asian girl and Caucasian male. So yes, our fetishism came long before we'd learned to spell 'multikulturalizmo.'

"They are, on average, more than sufficiently smart or wily to manipulate a successful path to their relationship goals."

How is this "average" calculated? Can you give us an idea of the statistical method you used?

"The site of a Chinese girl in Ching Dynasty attire, or a young Indian beauty in a clinging Sari, is still enough to gird the loins of any jaded European man."

Oooooh, I do love it when you talk dirty, MI. This site (sic) was good when it was about politics, but now it's a outlet for its contributors' fetishes it's just that little bit more stimulating. And would you agree that one thing more exciting than a clinging sari is a WET clinging sari? I'm getting all flushed and bothered - better have a cold shower and a lie-down...

Bob Doney said: "The reason why "white" countries have been the target of mass immigration is that their prosperity and tolerance of personal and political freedom is very attractive "

It has nothing to do with tolerance and political freedom. The cause of mass immigration is that our governments have organized it, with the help of the loony left and some employers.
If China, Morocco, Mexico, and so on... had organized mass immigration from sub-saharan Africa, they would now have a large African population too.
Europeans failed to react because our societies are broken, but the Mexicans and Moroccans would never allow their governments to carry out a population replacement.

Yes, I am fully aware of Wolfowitz's ancestry, which kind of proves I am not anti-Jewish per se'. Like him, I too have dated Muslim women, but this has not stopped me from attempts to undermine the existence of Islam. These healthy contradictions completely expose any charge that this website is racist. Having said that, Kapitein, I would say you were perfectly justified in pointing out the dissonance.

Saharian wrote: " Do you really think Muslim settlers and non-white colonists in the West are going to return home voluntarily? "

I think if we had a government bent on expelling them now, they would have to obey. Most of them would go home peacefully, and we would help them resettle in their home countries.
It would be easy for western governments to expel third-world settlers. The difficult part is that we first have to get rid of the extreme left ideology and replace our current governments.

" Do you honestly think Multi-Cult collaborators in the media, universities, and industry are going to suffer what they so dearly deserve without a struggle? "

Probably not !

" Do you really think foreign expeditionary forces from the US (with its own fatal problems!), Asia, and the Middle East won't intervene, once the shooting starts, to "preserve peace" in Britain and Europe? "

It depends… If the whites become a minority in the USA, then the USA will no longer care what goes on in the broad world. Third-world minorities will want the defense budget to be cut and used for something else.

Before we start a full blown civil war, we should start using a moderate amount of violence when it is called for. For example, when an employer makes an arrangement with the local public job center to bring 50 African workers to a small European community where 99% of the population is white, I think it would not be exaggerated to hunt down the employer and beat him up (no need to hang him to a lamppost). Unfortunately, it never happens. If it did happen occasionally, it would be enough to cut immigration by a considerable amount. We need to say firmly that replacing whites with third-worlders is wrong.

Never using any threat of violence against the loony left is the same as abolishing jails and fines. Respect for society crumbles. The problem is that the loony left never finds any one to resist them. We are too kind and civilized.

If you are PREDICTING future violence that would result from the naive (and perverse) 'multicul' policies of the "worst generation", then you are probably right in your prediction. But, if you are ADVOCATING such violence, then your comments are certainly "beyond the pale". The proper response to problems in relatively-democratic societies is to work for change, i.e. to convince enough of your fellow citizens for a change in course (of immigration policies).

And if you would care to make empirical observations about your "precedent" of Asian and African nationalists, you would know that their so-called "wars of liberation" did not lead to "liberation", far from it, but rather lead to different forms of autocracy and frequently of tyranny.

Preservation of a democratic CULTURE is a worthy goal. Pursuing racial 'purity' (however defined) is NOT, and would be in essence no different from Hamas/Hezbollah's goal of (misguided) religious 'purity', or the (neo-)communist's goal of ideological 'purity'. If you cannot convince enough 'white people' (and non-white 'democrats' in the West) that multiculturalism and associated moral relativism is destructive for democracy, then you cannot retain democracy with such people. Which means, in effect, that whatever society you will gain as a result of violence will not be 'democratic' and therefore not 'worth it'.

You appear to have alleged I am advocating a policy of racial purity. No, I never said, suggested, or implied that. Even so, I don't see why there cannot be at least two or three countries where 98% of the population has "blue eyes and blonde hair." After all, there exist numerous all-negro countries, and a racially homogenous Japan. In so-called multicultural Malaysia, there is very little inter-marriage between the Malay, Chinese, and Indian sections of that society.

Indeed, the (highly politicised) argument that racial differences do not actually exist in the genetic sense (which of course they do) still persists. I am merely pointing to the need to preserve, and robustly, our cultural identity, and to defend our racial purity from further existential attacks, for that is what all the Cultural-Marxist '-ism's' represent. The expulsion of all illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers is already perfectly justified.

The British media have been complicit in this slow holocaust by actually advocating -- through advertising and entertainment -- the 'benefits' of miscegenation between (almost exclusively) black males and white females. This brain-washing has been going on for over twenty years. Miscegenation between a Chinese girl and white male is never ever celebrated, let alone shown.

You seem to be under the illusion we still live in a democracy. Do we really? What we comment upon most in forums such as this could never have occured under authentic democracratic conditions. We are democratic in name only. We are too scared or embarrassed to face up the real truth of our present soft-totalitarian predicament. Therefore, whilst I agree with you that pursuasion is the preferred option, I have already reluctantly (and recently) concluded we have already crossed a rubicon of sorts. The cancer is showing signs of threatening our vital organs. It now seems unlikely (although I hope I shall be proven wrong) that we will ever put our culture and societies to right by democratic pursuasion alone. Socialist and Marxist delusions have a mental 'stickability' that is immune to counter-pursuasion. But, such stickability dissappears when people are threatened with physical harm. They are shook out of their reverie.

The use, or the threat, of real force is being forced upon us by circumstance -- almost out of desperation, although I have no desire to advocate its use any time soon. But, if things continue to deteriorate at rates we have endured since 1990, then after 5 or 10 more years? By then we will have more to lose if we don't advocate violence! Indeed, by then it might be our only option - and Saharian is correct: expeditionary forces from outside Europe will arrive to defend their genetic kith & kin (as they did in Bosnia).

Nevertheless, I feel strongly, that some people have been so complicit in the destruction of lives, businesses, reputations, whole societies, and even a civilization [some having enriched themselves, to disgusting degrees, on public funds] that the use of rope hung from lampposts seems quite lenient.

Many indicators suggest a slow holocaust is being carried out upon the white race. Amsterdamsky commented correctly (in my view) on this, when he posited Multiculturalism (an idea with Jewish immigrant origins) is revenge for the holocaust under Nazi Germany. This is a key jigsaw piece that allows many others to click into place.

The Transnationalist move towards world government provides another impetus for the dilution of white culture, white autonomy, and white identity.

The one-world experiment has been foisted only on white culture. No other culture: Chinese, Indian, Arab, Thai, et al, have been targetted for mass immigration from over-populated third world states. No other culture has had millions of jobs stripped from its economy and sent (the jargon is 'outsourced') to non-western states, especially India. To describe India as a democracy is to insult every democrat from Socrates to Churchill.

Look at the world from afar. It is only white culture that has to suffer social breakdown caused by drugs, ill-discipline, feminism, and marital breakdown, whilst at the same time being urged to send billions of dollars to Africa and Asia in the form of Aid.

Wolfowitz has just been ousted from his position as head of the World Bank only because he tackled, head on, the issue of rampant corruption in Third World countries abusing the bank's funds. In other words, for much of the past 40 years, third world states (through their appointees inside the Bank) have been stealing billions from its Western donors. If you want a fuller understanding, read the Wall Street Journal. And who is lurking in the shadows of Wolfowitz's demise? None other than George Soros; advocate in chief of numerous world government pressure groups, all set up with his own funds, the bulk of which were stolen from the British people (ERM). Malloc-Brown has been outspoken in his attacks against Wolfowitz because Malloc-Brown is now on Soros's private payroll -- he is also a Marxist oriented Transnationalist, par-excellance. Furthermore, George Soros (along with Karl Marx and Lenin, etc.) is a non-practising Jew.

I do not live in a Western country. I am already seeing signs that non-Western people are beginning to look down upon white people as they see Western culture 'taken to the cleaners' by these rampaging, impersonal, totalitarian forces. In some quarters, even Indians -- a people who until recently belonged to what was to all intents and purposes a failed state -- are now being treated with more respect. That is how far the pendulum has swung since 1990!

Mission Impossible: "The British media have been complicit in this slow holocaust by actually advocating -- through advertising and entertainment -- the 'benefits' of miscegenation between (almost exclusively) black males and white females. This brain-washing has been going on for over twenty years. Miscegenation between a Chinese girl and white male is never ever celebrated, let alone shown."

What on earth are you talking about? Your mind is really miscegenated. And why is the Chinese female a "girl"?

The reason why "white" countries have been the target of mass immigration is that their prosperity and tolerance of personal and political freedom is very attractive - exactly the opposite of totalitarian in fact.

Saharian ... I do not believe your comments are beyond the pale, far from it. And as for the use of lamposts, yes, and it won't take much effort to find sufficient rope! I happen to be a late member of 'the worst generation,' but I never liked my contemporaries that much when I was in my teens/early twenties because I could already see, back then, they (generally speaking) were going to be a problem. The signs were everywhere, even down to the adulation shown for creeps like David Bowie!! It seems my early observations have been born out.

for reminding us of Rousseau's triumph. I know, he wasn't the first, but his ideas are the solvent the is dissolving he west.

So we go from the end of history to the end of civilization in only 15 years? Rather than repeat what has been written, let me suggest some hope.

This is the time of fullness for the generation of '68's, our own Red Guard, who through laws, regulations, and example, tore down our reason, art and civilization as thoughly as their Chineese contemporaries. They are at the end of their careers, seemingly in charge of even the most conservative institutions (conservative parties, the Church). Our hope and prayer is that some from the following generation (my generation), agast at the wreckage, will save and improve what can be saved.

Weaker institutions, and weaker countries, will be swept away, like the civilization of the southern Mediterranean when the Arabs came.

Thanks for your words of optimism, but indeed it will be too late. The worst generation of champion wreckers will have been able to destroy roughly 2500 years of civilization within just about 50. That's a much better record than Nazism and communism combined!

This is the part of the link that got my attention "Earl Raab: Multiculturalist in America, Zionist in Israel Earl Raab, former president of heavily Jewish Brandeis University, makes the diversity argument in a slightly different way. Expressing his satisfaction with the prediction that by the middle of the next century whites will become a minority, he writes, "We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country." He is apparently prepared to displace the people and culture of the founding stock in order to prevent the theoretical rise of an anti-Jewish regime. Prof. Raab appears to see whites mainly as potential Nazis, and is willing to sacrifice their culture and national continuity in order to defuse an imagined threat to Jews. This passage takes for granted the continued future existence of Jews as a distinct community even as Gentile whites decline in numbers and influence.

There are two ideologies to spring out of the Enlightenment: liberalism and socialism. The latter stems from Rousseau who felt great shame with his lower status during his stays with the upper classes. From this comes two emotions. First is shame. Those who fail to succeed develop an inferiority complex for their lack of success. They hate themselves for their inability to rise to the top. The second is guilt. Those who do well because of their success become ashamed of it for it means that they are superior to those who fail. If the successful are compassionate, empathetic even, the delight in their success conflicts with the thought of the shame of inferiority and resentment toward them by the less successful. Thus, the solution lies in all suspension of judgment and all must be equal in all ways.

Multiculturalism is just a continuation of this: the West/white guilt for its spectacularly self-evident triumph over all other civilizations. This success shames the West/whites and induces shame for others in their shortcomings. The socialist solution: all are cultures must become equally valid and just. At least pretend so to avoid the psychological anguish.

It’s a great intellection fraud driven by unbounded narcissism that does no one a bit of good. That’s why socialist policies continue despite decades of evidence that it does the exact contrary and does enormous harm to those it claims ostensibly to help. It’s not rational – pure emotion.

Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and the cultural development thereby determined. We therefore reject-every attempt to impose on us any moral dogma whatsoever as an eternal, ultimate and forever immutable moral law.... Karl Marx

We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat...We do not believe in an eternal morality... We repudiate all morality derived from nonhuman [i.e., God] and non-class concepts.
-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin,

Multiculturalism, seems to me to be away of doing a of Morality, and replace it with anything that can be contrary to EU unification. [i.e., Totalitarianism]

Who we are

The Brussels Journal is written by Europeans, living in as well as outside Europe. The Brussels Journal is published by the Society for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE), a Swiss non-profit organisation.